View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Discuss General Topics.

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 01:01

hahahahaha
i am a skeptic linzee
im just pulling your leg cause i am having fun with this
hahaha sorry
wont happen again
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04






Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 12 Aug 2009, 01:05

ciscop wrote:hahahahaha
i am a skeptic linzee
im just pulling your leg cause i am having fun with this
hahaha sorry
wont happen again


I know you are but I'm worried the others will actually take that idea...I'd prefer to just learn from my mistakes and move on, wouldn't like it to permanently have my name attached!
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 01:16

hahaha oh! whats the harm
you already made it to winston´s paper
and you also call this place a big pile of kookiness (something like that) so everybody said something and now the controversy is over ( :( )
fair is fair... right? ;)

for the record
i hope when he adds me to his paper, has to be something with me using abusing logic and facts, like
not believing magicians are psychics, such as uri geller... like.. if he goes to magic conventions, hangs around with magicians, there´s methods in magic to do what he does, it has been seen on tv and youtube cheating, has made the cover of magic magazines, when there are control setting he has failed (johnny carson show) and no longer calls himself a psychic but a mystifier and distanced himself from the term psychic.. is.. because he is a MAGICIAN and is all tricks!
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 12 Aug 2009, 01:32

ciscop wrote:hahaha oh! whats the harm
you already made it to winston´s paper
and you also call this place a big pile of kookiness (something like that) so everybody said something and now the controversy is over ( :( )
fair is fair... right? ;)

for the record
i hope when he adds me to his paper, has to be something with me using abusing logic and facts, like
not believing magicians are psychics, such as uri geller... like.. if he goes to magic conventions, hangs around with magicians, there´s methods in magic to do what he does, it has been seen on tv and youtube cheating, has made the cover of magic magazines, when there are control setting he has failed (johnny carson show) and no longer calls himself a psychic but a mystifier and distanced himself from the term psychic.. is.. because he is a MAGICIAN and is all tricks!


i'm fine being on his paper, whatever, but once is enough lol i don't need a "syndrome" named after me! besides, it's not a syndrome if it's a one time thing...I hope to not make the mistake again...if I do it over and over again in the future then I deserve to have a syndrome named after me lol
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 12 Aug 2009, 01:44

Eteponge wrote:Proof? Anyone can claim to have "debunked" something. You start talking about *ANY* paranormal topic or paranormal case or paranormal study, and a Skeptic will speak up and say that it's been "totally debunked by someone much more experienced than me", then they will link to this "debunking", and it's generally a Skeptic article that sounds very convincing to anyone who *hasn't actually read and examined the data and research* of the topic in question, but to those who are familiar with it, is clearly seen as being full of factual errors, distortions, exaggerations, and omissions of data, and lots of clever talk to make it look like there is "nothing there".

If you read just Skeptic Articles and not the actual data and research of what they are discussing, you will be bamboozled quite easily, not being able to fact check what the Skeptics are saying with what the data actually suggests.

You can't suggest someone like me of being one-sided, because I read Csicop, Skepdic Dictionary, Skeptico, and other Skeptic Websites and Skeptic Articles to see what they have to say about X and Y, and then re-examine the data, and boy oh boy, factual errors, distortions, and omitting dazzle shot veridical details in particular cases is rampant.

The thing is, many Skeptic Sources love to leave out important veridical details in particular cases in an attempt to make a case look far less spectacular than it actually is. You wouldn't know the full story unless you read the actual data and research in question.

You need to go back and forth, back and forth, comparing what the Skeptic Sources say against the actual Data and Research in question, and the Arguments of the Skeptics against the Counter-Arguments of the Proponents, in order to filter out the crap and bias, and get to the bottom of things. To not do that is confirmation bias, where you only read and consider sources that agree with you, which would make you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

If you are in a position to criticize research and data, you should not do a half-assed job, like many sources critical of it do, is what it boils down to.


That is an excellent and accurate summary Eteponge. Do you mind if I use your paragraphs above in the treatise as a warning regarding skeptical literature?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 12 Aug 2009, 01:53

ciscop wrote:Its what is now known on the paranormalist sites
as the linzeebinzee syndrome wait for it to be added to wu´s paper
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I'm glad you find it so entertaining :)

personally i believe linzee was hoping for you to provide a non paranormalist link or study, something from scientific america or some kind of journal, but if the links came from deanradin pretty sure linzee can found the opposite of that study in skepdic or randi.org... (just like you said jref is faith based, skeptics say dean radin is faith based).

And Wu and Eteponge! you have big balls if you go to dragoncon i applaud your bravery! you will enter the eagle´s nest!
thats quite awesome ask them in advance the topics you will debate, if you go as ¨paranormal¨ thats too broad they will hit you with hydrick, popoff, geller.. and already proven cheaters so better you be specific and read all you can about a topic.


I don't think you understand the big picture here. It's not just Radin vs. Randi. There are CONTROLLED experiments out there that are double blind and replicated that support psi. They've been published in scientific journals like Nature and Physics journals too. They exist. Didn't you know that?

But even so, such journals do not define or dictate reality. They are merely prestigious journals. They are not infallible. A Ph D doesn't always know more than someone without a Ph D for instance.

I watched the video of DragonCon last year. It looks like it'll be a piece of cake. I've heard all of Shermer's arguments many times and know how to counter them. I have a card up my sleeve for every point they have. It'll be a piece of cake.

What I don't get is why such debates are held at science fiction conventions. Usually people who go to Cons aren't interested in that sort of stuff. I know folks at Cons and they consider the paranormal a non-issue. When you bring it up, they act like they don't even hear it.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 02:40

Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:How do believers debate the findings of the National Academy of Science from 1988 that there has been "no scientific evidence" of parapsychology in the 130 years of research and there is no need for further research? The NAS, if you didn't know, is the congressionally chartered, governing body of science in the United States.
Just curious...


Um are you naive? You actually think that a group put together and controlled by a governing elite is going to be unbiased, objective and logical with no agenda or vested interest? lol That's what I call blind faith.

Anyone can just deny something. Even a child can. But to deny something for valid, logical, substantive reasons and facts is a different thing altogether. Can you demonstrate that the NAS has done the latter, logically and efficiently without bias or distortion, on all parapsychology research?

You know what Scepcop, you're absolutely right! Why should anyone believe what the National Academy of Science? Shoot yea, they are totally illogical, unbiased, and objective. Instead, why don't we listen to those irrefutable sources such as Unsolved Mysteries, Charles Berlitz, and the "Is It Real?" series. They are far, far more reliable than these people who's charter includes: "The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public. Four organizations comprise the Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council."

So, am I naive or are you? I'm not sure so we'll have to let others decide that, but let me throw something out there for all to think about. The NAS is a "scientific committee." According to the title of your website, you are a "scientific committee." Now, let me ask, who would be the more reliable source of information, you or the NAS? If I'm grading your paper in my class and you used this website in an attempt to validate a topic, you would be sorely disappointed with a failing score.
Wag
P.S. Yes I can demonstrate that the NAS drew their conclusions using "valid, logical, substantive reasons and facts." I posted the entire results of their study in another post in your forum. Feel free to review. It's 700 pages so I doubt you will since all 700 pages go against everything you believe, but hey, have a go at it. Maybe you'll learn something about proper research to aid your "scientific committee."

P.S.S. I've seen you use the term "straw man" several times in this forum. Perhaps you should go back and look at your posts...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 03:00

Scepcop wrote:
ciscop wrote:Its what is now known on the paranormalist sites
as the linzeebinzee syndrome wait for it to be added to wu´s paper
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I'm glad you find it so entertaining :)

personally i believe linzee was hoping for you to provide a non paranormalist link or study, something from scientific america or some kind of journal, but if the links came from deanradin pretty sure linzee can found the opposite of that study in skepdic or randi.org... (just like you said jref is faith based, skeptics say dean radin is faith based).

And Wu and Eteponge! you have big balls if you go to dragoncon i applaud your bravery! you will enter the eagle´s nest!
thats quite awesome ask them in advance the topics you will debate, if you go as ¨paranormal¨ thats too broad they will hit you with hydrick, popoff, geller.. and already proven cheaters so better you be specific and read all you can about a topic.


I don't think you understand the big picture here. It's not just Radin vs. Randi. There are CONTROLLED experiments out there that are double blind and replicated that support psi. They've been published in scientific journals like Nature and Physics journals too. They exist. Didn't you know that?

But even so, such journals do not define or dictate reality. They are merely prestigious journals. They are not infallible. A Ph D doesn't always know more than someone without a Ph D for instance.

I watched the video of DragonCon last year. It looks like it'll be a piece of cake. I've heard all of Shermer's arguments many times and know how to counter them. I have a card up my sleeve for every point they have. It'll be a piece of cake.

What I don't get is why such debates are held at science fiction conventions. Usually people who go to Cons aren't interested in that sort of stuff. I know folks at Cons and they consider the paranormal a non-issue. When you bring it up, they act like they don't even hear it.


i dont know nature and physics
but would like to see those papers
but i think maybe we should start another thread instead of putting them here
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 03:18

Scepcop wrote:I don't think you understand the big picture here. It's not just Radin vs. Randi. There are CONTROLLED experiments out there that are double blind and replicated that support psi. They've been published in scientific journals like Nature and Physics journals too. They exist. Didn't you know that?


Scepcop, I would just like to verify something if I may. I searched the term "parapsychology" in the Nature journal you referenced and only found one article. It costs to read the entire article so I'm not spending my dime, but this was the abstract I found:

"The lab that asked the wrong questions
Lucy Odling-Smee

Top of pageAbstractClosure of parapsychology lab throws spotlight on scientific taboos.

A medley of random-event machines, including a kaleidoscopic crystal ball on a pendulum, a pipe spurting water and a motorized box straddled by a toy frog, came to the end of their working lives yesterday at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory in New Jersey.Only romantics — and some parapsychologists — are likely to lament the loss of this unique institution, which investigated whether people can alter the behaviour of machines using their thoughts."

Is this the scientific reference you are wishing to use to support your statement?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 04:21

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:I don't think you understand the big picture here. It's not just Radin vs. Randi. There are CONTROLLED experiments out there that are double blind and replicated that support psi. They've been published in scientific journals like Nature and Physics journals too. They exist. Didn't you know that?


Scepcop, I would just like to verify something if I may. I searched the term "parapsychology" in the Nature journal you referenced and only found one article. It costs to read the entire article so I'm not spending my dime, but this was the abstract I found:

"The lab that asked the wrong questions
Lucy Odling-Smee

Top of pageAbstractClosure of parapsychology lab throws spotlight on scientific taboos.

A medley of random-event machines, including a kaleidoscopic crystal ball on a pendulum, a pipe spurting water and a motorized box straddled by a toy frog, came to the end of their working lives yesterday at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory in New Jersey.Only romantics — and some parapsychologists — are likely to lament the loss of this unique institution, which investigated whether people can alter the behaviour of machines using their thoughts."

Is this the scientific reference you are wishing to use to support your statement?


well to be fair
it is a study on parapsychology
the only thing.. is that the result they got was negative (again)
i think scescop, you shouldnt quote nature and physics.. when you said it, i thought they found something positive
turns out they didnt..

thanks prof! its awesome that you have that reserch capacity...
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Purple Scissor » 12 Aug 2009, 04:24

Scepcop wrote:Linzee, I congratulate your honesty too. But I wonder still, if you aren't interested in evidence then why did you ask for it? My theory is that when you asked for evidence, you believed that I could not give you any, so it was a sort of taunt. Then, if I was unable to point to any evidence, as you hoped, you would use that to support your case. That was your plan wasn't it? (or what you subconsciously planned)


You know, Vinstonas, that is an appealing hypothesis. It is supported by the fact she stated that there was no evidence.

I looked at the NAS statement once, and we at WikiSynergy will write an article on it soon. It was a dreadful fiasco. And that is from a completely neutral viewpoint: any neutral observer would have said it was dreadfully handled, and it also rejected nearly all the data. The only good part was the creativity that went into the sound bite. It is an amazing story, but complex which is why there are no good summaries on the web.

linzeebinzee syndrome...... that is the kind of thing that I could write an article about, just for the Google. Would Lindsay really be mad? It would help her Google also. The reason it is so very good is that it is an original name. Come on Lindsay, I do not want to be mean to you, but it would be great. It is a syndrome because it is so common for skeptics. I could note that you were one of the few who could correct the disease.

There are non-paranormalist sources for the paranormal, if linzeebinzee wants them.

If that video of someone standing up to Randi and his table of skeptics is any indication, you have to be careful at DragonCon. The guy got it wrong, and Randi was right.

If anyone really wishes, I know of a list of paranormal papers, some in mainstream journals. That nature article is nothing, and is not really very negative to the paranormal.

I have done some reading in some of paranormal science, but I am no expert. I do much more reading in normal science, from a layman's perspective.

Here is a quote from the Nature article; I like to quote the skeptics:
In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one. "It raises the issue of where you draw the line," says sceptic Chris French, an 'anomalistic psychologist' at Goldsmiths, University of London, who tries to explain what seem to be paranormal experiences in straightforward psychological terms. French thinks that even though the chances of a real effect being discovered are low, the implications of a positive result would be so interesting that work such as Jahn's is worth pursuing.


Of course the parapsychology lab got results. Did I see someone saying they did not?
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 12 Aug 2009, 04:33

Purple Scissor wrote:linzeebinzee syndrome...... that is the kind of thing that I could write an article about, just for the Google. Would Lindsay really be mad? It would help her Google also.


Please don't. I don't need help on Google. My blog is for myself, I'm not out to get thousands of readers or anything. Please don't use my name, make up a different name for it, I'm sure you can think of something to attach "syndrome" too that actually has to do with the topic.
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 04:41

linzee is gonna get mad at me!!
:D it was only a joke !!! let it gooo
i have always wonder where slang came from..
imagine if in 20 years.. it gets popular and out of the paranormal/skeptic realm
¨are you linzebinzing me?
:lol: stop it!

it is a joke
let it go guys
please let it go
there´s things like chevalry and being courteous to a lady
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Student of Sophia » 12 Aug 2009, 04:45

I think Lindsay might be displaying characteristics that are described in a paper I referenced earlier, The Pathology of Organized Skepticism. The author sort of goes undercover and investigates a skeptic organization.

"Recently, I have voluntarily and publicly “blown my cover” with them, and advised them that this paper was coming. I felt it only fair to give them some warning, but did not disclose this paper’s central premise."


And here is something that I think sheds a little light on Lindsay.

"Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this [faith-based] philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again."

You once considered self a person of faith, correct Lindsay? You feel you were duped...that you were "completely credulous"?

"A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything.

This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind."


And you were 'de-converted' by the the movie Religulous, and now you'll be durned if you're gonna get duped again! You've made up your mind, and placed your bets. You're betting on scientism and you're not interested in evidence to the contrary because all that would mean to you is that you were duped again.

Did you stop for one second to consider a middle ground, or did you just shift from one extreme to the other during that movie?
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Purple Scissor » 12 Aug 2009, 05:14

Yes, I already said that to her, on her blog. But I did not know about the paper. Think about it Lindsay: Why are you so sure of yourself? You are not even interested in the evidence. A true skeptic would let themselves be agnostic. Only religious people are sure of themselves without having really studied the data. Do you think I am sure about something? You are wrong.

I believe in unbelief
And further, I believe it.
If you think that contradicts
It's cause you can't achieve it.

Okay, Lindsay, I guess I really cannot post this because it is too mean to you (that is, if you think it is mean then it would be mean). But just in case you change your mind, here is the draft (wiki formatted)

The '''Linzeebinzee syndrome''' is the condition wherein a skeptic, having stated that [[|no evidence exists]] then requests evidence. When evidence is provided, the skeptic then makes it clear that they are not actually interested in the subject to begin with.

The syndrome is named after Linzeebinzee of the XXXXXXX blog. Linzeebinzee, having manifested the syndrome, and having been called on it by Vinstonas Wu, was also the first and only skeptic to recover from the disease, stating:
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron